3 Go Vs CA PDF

9/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 272
752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Go vs. Court of Appeals
*
G.R. No. 114791. May 29, 1997.
NANCY GO AND ALEX GO, petitioners, vs. THE

HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HERMOGENES
ONG and JANE C. ONG, respondents.
Marriages; Husband and Wife; In our society, the importance

of a wedding cerem ony cannot be overestimated as it is the matrix
of the family, and therefore, an occasion worth reliving in the
succeeding years.—No less than the Constitution commands us to
protect marriage as an inviolable social institution and the
foundation of the family. In our society, the importance of a
wedding ceremony cannot be underestimated as it is the matrix of
the family and, therefore, an occasion worth reliving in the
succeeding years.
Same; Contracts; Where the contract entered into is one of
service, that is, for the video coverage of a wedding, it can hardly
be said that the object of the contract was the video equipment
used.—Petitioners’ argument that s ince the video equipment
used belonged to Lim and thus the contract was actually entered
into between private respondents and Lim is not deserving of any
serious consideration. In the instant case, the contract entered
into is one of service, that is, for the video coverage of the
wedding. Consequently, it can hardly be s aid that the object of
the contract was the video equipment used. The use by petitioners
of the video equipment of another person is of no consequence.
Contracts; Agency; Evidence; Witnesses; Where a party fails to
present a vital witness, it would not be unwarranted to assum e
that such failure would have an adverse result on the case.—It
must also
______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
753
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017482e63a028b9869fd003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/20
VOL. 272, MAY 29, 1997 753
be noted that in the course of the protracted trial below,

petitioners did not even present Lim to corroborate their
contention that they were mere agents of the latter. It would not
be unwarranted to assume that their failure to present such a
vital witness would have had an adverse result on the case.
Same; Marriages; It is contrary to human nature for any new-
lywed couple to neglect to claim the video coverage of their
wedding.—As correctly observed by the Court of Appeals, it is
contrary to human nature for any newlywed couple to neglect to
claim the video coverage of their wedding; the fact that private
respondents filed a case against petitioners belies such as sertion.
Clearly, petitioners are guilty of actionable delay for having failed
to proces s the video tape. Considering that private respondents
were about to leave for the United States, they took care to inform
petitioners that they would just claim the tape upon their return
two months later. Thus, the erasure of the tape after the lapse of
thirty days was unjustified.
Same; Damages; Those who in the performance of their
obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence or delay, and those who
in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for
damages.—In this regard, Article 1170 of the Civil Code provides
that “those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty
of fraud, negligence or delay, and those who in any manner
contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.” In the
instant case, petitioners and private respondents entered into a
contract whereby, for a fee, the former undertook to cover the
latter’s wedding and deliver to them a video copy of said event.
For whatever reason, petitioners failed to provide private
respondents with their tape. Clearly, petitioners are guilty of
contravening their obligation to s aid private respondents and are
thus liable for damages.
Same; Same; Quasi-Delicts; While generally moral damages
cannot be recovered in an action for breach of contract, the sam e
may be recovered where the breach was palpably wanton, reckless,
malicious or in bad faith, oppressive or abusive, such as when a
party’s act or omission in recklessly erasing the video coverage of a
couple’s wedding was precisely the cause of the suffering the latter
had to undergo.—Generally, moral damages cannot be recovered
in an action for breach of contract because this case is not among
those enumerated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code. However, it is
also accepted in this jurisdiction that liability for a quasi-delict
may still exis t despite the presence of contractual relations, that

is, the act
754
which violates the contract may also cons titute a quasi-delict.

Consequently, moral damages are recoverable for the breach of
contract which was palpably wanton, reckless, malicious or in bad
faith, oppressive or abusive. Petitioners’ act or omiss ion in
recklessly erasing the video coverage of private respondents’
wedding was precisely the cause of the suffering private
respondents had to undergo.
Same; Same; The award of exemplary damages is justified
where there was an attendant wanton negligence committed by the
guilty party.—Considering the attendant wanton negligence
committed by petitioners in the case at bar, the award of
exemplary damages by the trial court is justified to s erve as a
warning to all entities engaged in the same business to obs erve
due diligence in the conduct of their affairs.
Same; Obligations; Joint and Several Liability; Husband and
Wife; Since the wife may exercise any profession, occupation or
engage in business without the consent of the husband, the
husband may not be held jointly and severally liable with his wife
for breach of a contract that the latter had entered into.—Finally,
petitioner Alex Go questions the finding of the trial and appellate
courts holding him jointly and severally liable with his wife
Nancy regarding the pecuniary liabilities imposed. He argues that
when his wife entered into the contract with private res pondent,
she was acting alone for her sole interest. We find merit in this
contention. Under Article 117 of the Civil Code (now Article 73 of
the Family Code), the wife may exercise any profession,
occupation or engage in business without the consent of the
husband. I n the instant case, we are convinced that it was only
petitioner Nancy Go who entered into the contract with private
respondent. Consequently, we rule that she is solely liable to
private respondents for the damages awarded below, pursuant to
the principle that contracts produce effect only as between the
parties who execute them.
PETITION for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Veronico R. Sardoncillo for petitioners.
Saleto J. Erames for private respondents.
755
VOL. 272, MAY 29, 1997 755

ROMERO, J.:
No less than the Constitution commands us to protect

marriage as an inviolable 1
social institution and the
foundation of the family. In our society, the importance of
a wedding ceremony cannot be underestimated as it is the
matrix of the family and, therefore, an occasion worth
reliving in the succeeding years.
It is in this light that we narrate the follow ing
undisputed facts:
Private respondents spouses Hermogenes and Jane Ong
were married on June 7, 1981, in Dumaguete City. The
video coverage of the wedding w as provided by petitioners
at a contract price of P1,650.00. Three times thereafter, the
newlyweds tried to claim the video tape of their wedding, w
hich they planned to show to their relatives in the United
States where they were to spend their honeymoon, and
thrice they failed because the tape was apparently not yet
processed. The parties then agreed that the tape would be
ready upon private respondents’ return.
When private respondents came home from their
honeymoon, however, they found out that the tape had
been erased by petitioners and therefore, could no longer be
delivered.
Furious at the loss of the tape w hich was supposed to be
the only record of their wedding, private respondents filed
on September 23, 1981 a complaint for specific performance
and damages against petitioners before the Regional Trial
Court, 7th Judicial District, Branch 33, Dumaguete City.
After a protracted trial, the court a quo rendered a
decision, to wit:
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby granted:
1. Ordering the rescission of the agreement entered into

between plaintiff Hermogenes Ong and defendant Nancy
Go;
2. Declaring defendants Alex Go and Nancy Go jointly and
severally liable to plaintiffs Hermogenes Ong and Jane C.
Ong for the following sums:
______________
1 Section 2, Article XV, 1987 Constitution.
756

a) P450.00, the down payment made at contract time;

b) P75,000.00, as moral damages;
c) P20,000.00, as exemplary damages;
d) P5,000.00, as attorney’s fees; and
e) P2,000.00, as litigation expenses;
Defendants are also ordered to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.”
Dissatisfied with the decision, petitioners elevated the case

to the Court of Appeals which, on September 14, 1993,
dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court’s decision.
Hence, this petition.
Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred in
not appreciating the evidence they presented to prove that
they acted only as agents of a certain Pablo Lim and, as
such, should not have been held liable. In addition, they
aver that there is no evidence to show that the erasure of
the tape was
2
done in bad faith so as to justify the award of
damages.
The petition is not meritorious.
Petitioners claim that for the video coverage, the
camera-man was employed by Pablo Lim who also owned
the video equipment used. They further assert that they
merely get3 a commission for all customers solicited for their
principal.
This contention is primarily premised on Article 1883 of
the Civil Code which states thus:
“ART. 1883. If an agent acts in his own name, the principal has no
right of action against the persons with whom the agent has
contracted; neither have such persons agains t the principal.
In such case the agent is the one directly bound in favor of the
person with whom he has contracted, as if the transaction were
his own, except when the contract involves things belonging to the
principal.
x x x x x x x x x.”
_______________
2 Rollo, pp. 15-23.

3 Ibid., p. 7.
757
VOL. 272, MAY 29, 1997 757

Petitioners’ argument that since the video equipment used

belonged to Lim and thus the contract was actually entered
into between private respondents and Lim is not deserving
of any serious consideration. In the instant case, the
contract entered into is one of service, that is, for the video
coverage of the wedding. Consequently, it can hardly be
said that the object of the contract was the video equipment
used. The use by petitioners of the video equipment of
another person is of no consequence.
It must also be noted that in the course of the protracted
trial below, petitioners did not even present Lim to
corroborate their contention that they were mere agents of
the latter. It would not be unwarranted to assume that
their failure to present such a4 vital witness would have had
an adverse result on the case.
As regards the award of damages, petitioners would
impress upon this Court their lack of malice or fraudulent
intent in the erasure of the tape. They insist that since
private respondents did not claim the tape after the lapse
of thirty days, as agreed upon in their contract, the erasure
was done in consonance
5
with consistent business practice
to minimize losses.
We are not persuaded.
As correctly observed by the Court of Appeals, it is
contrary to human nature for any newlywed couple to
neglect to claim the video coverage of their wedding; the
fact that private respondents filed a case against
petitioners belies such assertion. Clearly, petitioners are
guilty of actionable delay for having failed to process the
video tape. Considering that private respondents were
about to leave for the United States, they took care to
inform petitioners that they would just claim the tape upon
their return two months later. Thus, the erasure of the
tape after the lapse of thirty days was unjustified.
______________
4 Section 3(e), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court states, “(t)hat evidence
willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.”
5 Rollo, p. 19.
758

In this regard, Article 1170 of the Civil Code provides that

“those who in the performance of their obligations are
guilty of fraud, negligence or delay, and those who in any
manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for
damages.”
In the instant case, petitioners and private respondents
entered into a contract whereby, for a fee, the former
undertook to cover the latter’s w edding and deliver to
them a video copy of said event. For whatever reason,
petitioners failed to provide private respondents w ith their
tape. Clearly, petitioners are guilty of contravening their
obligation to said private respondents and are thus liable
for damages.
The grant of actual or compensatory damages in the
amount of P450.00 is justified, as reimbursement of the 6
down-payment paid by private respondents to petitioners.
Generally, moral damages cannot be recovered in an
action for breach of contract because this case is not among
those enumerated in Article 2219 of the Civil Code.
However, it is also accepted in this jurisdiction that
liability for a quasidelict may still exist despite the
presence of contractual relations, that is, the act which7
violates the contract may also constitute a quasi-delict.
Consequently, moral damages are recoverable for the
breach of contract which was palpably wanton, 8
reckless,
malicious or in bad faith, oppressive or abusive.
Petitioners’ act or omission in recklessly erasing the
video coverage of private respondents’ wedding was
precisely the cause of the suffering private respondents had
to undergo.
As the appellate court aptly observed:
“Considering the sentimental value of the tapes and the fact that
the event therein recorded—a wedding which in our culture is a
significant milestone to be cherished and remembered—could no
_______________
6 Article 2200, Civil Code of the Philippines.

7 PARAS, Civil Code of the Philippines, V, 1990, pp. 995-996; Singson v. Bank of
the Philippine Islands, 23 SCRA 1117 (1968).
8 TOLENTINO, COMM ENTARIES & JURISPRUDENCE ON THE CIVIL
CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, V, 1995, p. 656.
759
VOL. 272, MAY 29, 1997 759

longer be reenacted and was lost forever, the trial court was
correct in awarding the appellees moral damages albeit in the
amount of P75,000.00, which was a great reduction from
plaintiffs’ demand in the complaint, in compensation for the
mental anguish, tortured feelings, sleepless nights and
humiliation that the appellees suffered and which under the
circumstances could be awarded
9
as allowed under Articles 2217
and 2218 of the Civil Code.”
Considering the attendant wanton negligence committed

by petitioners in the case at bar, the award
10
of exemplary
damages by the trial court is justified to serve as a
warning to all entities engaged in the same business to
observe due diligence in the conduct of their affairs.
The award of attorney’s fees and litigation11expenses are
likewise proper, consistent with Article 2208 of the Civil
Code.
Finally, petitioner Alex Go questions the finding of the
trial and appellate courts holding him jointly and severally
liable with his wife Nancy regarding the pecuniary
liabilities imposed. He argues that when his wife entered
into the contract with private
12
respondent, she was acting
alone for her sole interest.
We find merit in this contention. Under Article 117 of
the Civil Code (now Article 73 of the Family Code), the wife
may exercise any profession, occupation or engage in
business without the consent of the husband. In the instant
case, we are convinced that it was only petitioner Nancy Go
who entered into the contract with private respondent.
Consequently, we rule that she is solely liable to private
respondents for the damages awarded below, pursuant to
the princi-
______________
9 Rollo, p. 37.
11 “ART. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney’s fees and
expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered,
except:
(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;
x x x x x x x x x”
12 Rollo, p. 23.
760

People vs. Soriano
ple that contracts produce 13

effect only as between the
parties who execute them.
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision dated September
14, 1993 is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION
that petitioner Alex G o is absolved from any liability to
private respondents and that petitioner Nancy Go is solely
liable to said private respondents for the judgment award.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Regalado (Chairman), Puno, Mendoza and Torres,

Jr., JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed with modification.
Note.—“Secret marriage” is a legally non-existent

phrase but ordinarily used to refer to a civil marriage
celebrated without the knowledge of the relatives and/or
friends of either or both of the contracting parties. (Republi
c vs. Court of Appeals, 236 SCRA 257 [1994])
——o0o——
*
G.R. No. 114901. May 29, 1997.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff -appellee, vs.

LITO SORIANO Y SAGUCIO alias “LORETO SORIANO Y
SAGUCIO,” accused-appellant.
Evidence; Witnesses; Factual findings of trial courts are

accorded the highest respect as they are in the best situation to
observe the deportment and demeanor of witnesses and to assess
their credibility.—It is doctrinally entrenched that factual
findings of trial courts are accorded the highest res pect as they
are in the best situa-
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
761
VOL. 272, MAY 29, 1997 761
People vs. Soriano
tion to observe the deportment and demeanor of witnesses and to

assess their credibility. Their factual findings are disturbed only if
there is abuse of discretion. But we are unable to discern any
committed by the trial court.
Criminal Law; Rape; The absence of spermatozoa does not
negate rape.—Then too, the defense harps on the fact that no
sperm was found on Hilda thus disproving her testimony that
appellant allegedly raped her. But the absence of spermatozoa
does not negate rape. For in rape of this nature, it is only
necessary to prove carnal knowledge by using force and
intimidation, which the prosecution in this case has more than
sufficiently established.
Same; Same; Since normally only two (2) persons are privy to
the commission of rape, the evaluation of the evidence presented
therein ultimately revolves around the credibility of the
complaining witness.—If there is any testimony that is incredible
and contradictory, it is that of appellant. His denials are self-
serving and do not deserve any credence at all, especially when
assayed against the positive and candid testimony of Hilda. Since
normally only two (2) persons are privy to the commission of rape,
the evaluation of the evidence presented therein ultimately
revolves around the credibility of the complaining witness. It is
Hilda’s account of the case that we are most inclined to accept.
Same; Same; There is absolutely no nexus between the
reputation of a rape victim and the odious deed committed against
her.—The above narration cannot inspire belief. For if indeed the
accused caught his “girlfriend” in flagrante with another man, he
would not have reacted as mildly as he did. Again, appellant lost
no effort in describing Hilda as a woman of loose morals. But this
serves no useful purpose at all. For the character of a rape victim
will not disprove rape. There is absolutely no nexus between the
reputation of a rape victim and the odious deed committed against
her.
APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of

Bangui, Ilocos Norte, Br. 19.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.
762

People vs. Soriano
BELLOSILLO, J.:
LITO SORIANO Y SAGUCIO alias “Loreto Soriano y

Sagucio” was found by the court a quo to have raped Hilda
Acio. The evidence confirms his culpability; hence, we
affirm.
On 22 March 1991 Hilda Acio and Lesley Oania, a
neighbor and friend, attended the foundation anniversary
of their school. At around eight-thirty in the evening they
left the festivities and proceeded to the house of Hilda’s
grandmother Mercedes de la Cruz in Bgy. Lanao, Bangui,
Ilocos Norte, to pass the night there. When they arrived
Mercedes and Hilda’s tw in sisters w ere already asleep in
the sala. Hilda had to use her own key to enter the house.
Hilda and Lesley then slept with them.
At around one-thirty the following morning, Hilda was
awakened when she felt somebody’s legs on top of hers. She
imm ediately switched on the light. She saw Lito Soriano y
Sagucio alias “Loreto Soriano y Sagucio” sitting by her side
with a long bolo on hand. He was reeking of liquor. Then
Lesley Oania, the twins and the 70-year-old Mercedes also
woke up. Mercedes asked Lito why he was inside their
house. He answered that he was just seeking refuge as he
had killed somebody. He warned them not to disclose his
presence in the house or he would kill all of them.
Lito sat on the sofa and ordered Hilda to sit at his side.
Gripped with fear, she obeyed; she had no recourse. Lito
placed his bolo on top of her thighs and started kissing her
on the lips and cheeks, at the same time mashing her
breasts. She pushed his hands away. This annoyed him. He
stood up and poised to strike Mercedes on the neck. He
returned to the sofa and continued kissing Hilda, mashing
her breasts and touching her thighs. She parried him off.
This all the more angered him. He stood up and smothered
Mercedes’ face with a pillow. He commanded Hilda to open
the main door and said that he would only leave the
premises if she would kiss him.
Hilda refused; surprisingly, he did not insist. Instead, he
asked Hilda to fetch him a glass of water and to open the
kitchen door. Hilda offered to open the main door for him
but
763
VOL. 272, MAY 29, 1997 763

People vs. Soriano
he said he preferred to pass through the kitchen door

because his NPA companions were waiting for him outside
the kitchen.
When the kitchen door was opened Lito immediately
pulled Hilda and pinned her against the concrete wall of
the kitchen. He removed his shorts and briefs and started
kissing her again. She struggled so he boxed her on the
stomach. This visibly weakened her. As he dragged her she
held on to her shorts in an effort to thwart his sexual
assault. But all her resistance proved futile. Lito forcibly
removed her panty, laid on top of her, inserted his penis
into her vagina and had intercourse with her. He kissed
her from the face down to her most coveted part. After
slaking his lust, Lito got up and put on his clothes. Hilda
seized that opportunity to escape. She immediately
gathered her clothes and ran towards the kitchen. Once
inside, she locked the door. He lingered outside the house
for awhile but left soon after.
Hilda lost no time in narrating her harrowing
experience to Lesley. Even without being told, Mercedes
sensed that Lito had offended Hilda. At around five o’clock
that same morning, the incident was relayed to Victoria de
la Cruz, aunt of Hilda, who in turn asked someone to report
the matter to the police. Hilda was then brought to the
Bangui District Hospital where she was examined by Dr.
Diosdado I. Garvida. The medico-legal examination
disclosed that Hilda suffered abrasions on the right side of
her neck; another just below the mandible; and still
another, on the level of the larynx. She also sustained a
contusion on the right buccal area, and an erythema at the
vaginal orifice. She was also found to have an old hymenal
1
laceration at 3:00 o’clock and 9:00 o’clock positions.
Lito Soriano was apprehended and brought to the police
station for investigation. On 25 March 1991 Hilda Acio
filed a complaint against Soriano with the Municipal
Circuit Trial
2
Court of Bangui-Pagudpud-Adams-
Dumalneg. After preliminary examination, the
investigating judge found a prima facie
______________
1 Exh. “B,” Folder of Exhibits.

2 Docketed as Crim. Case No. 4049-B.
764

People vs. Soriano
case against the accused, and on 13 May 1991 he was

formally charged with rape
3
before the Regional Trial Court
of Bangui, Ilocos Norte.
Lito Soriano told a different story. At the pre-trial
conference he admitted having sexual intercourse with
Hilda. However his admission was later withdrawn for
having purportedly been made improvidently. O n the
witness stand he claimed that since 15 August 1988 until
the alleged rape he and Hilda were sweethearts. On 17
March 1991, or three (3) days before the incident, he saw
Hilda having sexual intercourse with her boyfriend Joemer
Rumbaoa. He felt bad about it. On 22 March 1991, while he
was having a snack at Hilda’s store, she approached him
and asked if she could talk to him later at her
grandmother’s house. So, at around eight-thirty that
evening, he went to their tryst and then and there ended
their relationship. He stayed there for only thirty (30)
minutes and then left for home and slept. The following
morning he was picked up by the police and taken to the
municipal jail.
On 16 November 1993, after trial, the Regional Trial
Court found Lito Soriano y Sagucio alias “Loreto Soriano y
Sagucio” guilty of rape and sentenced him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua, 4to indemnify Hilda Acio
P50,000.00, and to pay the costs.
Accused-appellant imputes the following errors to the
court a quo: (1) in holding that force and intimidation
attended the carnal act between accused-appellant and
private complain-ant; (2) in finding accused-appellant
guilty of rape despite the incredible testimony of private
complainant; and, (3) in finding accused-appellant guilty of
the crime charged despite the failure of5 the prosecution to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
It is doctrinally entrenched that factual findings of trial
courts are accorded the highest respect as they are in the
best situation to observe the deportment and demeanor of
wit-
______________
3 Docketed as Crim. Case No. 833-19.

4 Decision, RTC-Br. 19, Bangui, Ilocos Norte, p. 17; Rollo, p. 42.
5 Appellant’s Brief, pp. 1-2; Rollo, pp. 89-90.
765
VOL. 272, MAY 29, 1997 765

People vs. Soriano
nesses and to assess their credibility. Their factual findings

are disturbed only if there is abuse of discretion. But we
are unable to discern any committed by the trial court.
Accused-appellant contends that the testimony of Hilda
Acio is incredible and unworthy of belief. We hold
otherwise. Hilda had no ill motive in filing this case6against
appellant who himself acknowledged this fact. Hilda
successfully weathered not only the direct and redirect
examinations but also the grueling and probing cross and
re-cross questions. Not for a moment did she contradict
herself. She cried on the witness stand when she recalled
her horrendous ordeal in the hands of appellant. The lapse
of two (2) years did not stop her tears from falling again
when she took the witness stand as a rebuttal witness.
Accused-appellant theorizes that Hilda could have easily
resisted the sexual assault on her person had she wanted
to. Her failure to do so could only mean that she voluntarily
submitted to the sexual congress. But the evidence at hand
confutes this assertion. From the very start Hilda parried
off the improper advances of appellant, but every tim e he
countered by threatening to strike her grandmother and
twin sisters. He even boxed Hilda on the stomach. What is
more, he had a long bolo on hand which he brandished
whenever she resisted.
Then too, the defense harps on the fact that no sperm
was found on Hilda thus disproving her testimony that
appellant allegedly raped her. But the absence of
spermatozoa does not negate rape. For in rape of this
nature, it is only necessary to prove carnal knowledge by
using force and intimidation, which the prosecution in this
case has more than sufficiently established.
If there is any testimony that is incredible and
contradictory, it is that of appellant. His denials are self-
serving and do not deserve any credence at all, especially
when assayed against the positive and candid testimony of
Hilda. Since normally only two (2) persons are privy to the
commission of
______________
6 TSN, 3 March 1993, p. 83.
766

People vs. Soriano
rape, the evaluation of the evidence presented therein

ultimately revolves around the credibility of the
complaining witness. It is Hilda’s account of the case that
we are most inclined to accept.
Accused-appellant’s persistent avowal that Hilda has
been his sweetheart since 27 October 1988 appears
farfetched. Hilda was born on 8 February 1975 and this
makes her only thirteen (13) years old when she allegedly
became romantically linked to him, who by then was
already twenty-eight (28) years old. Furthermore, he was
living in w ith a certain Evelyn Ramos. Lito also testified
that he was not Hilda’s first boyfriend. Thus—
Atty. Reyes:
Now, you mentioned a certain Lando Aguinaldo and
Joemer Rumbaoa as sweetheart(s) of Hilda Acio, do you
know who was the first among (sic) these two (2)
persons (to be) the sweetheart of Hilda Acio?
xxxx
A. Orlando Aguinaldo, sir.
Q. A resident of that place?
A. Yes sir, we are neighbors.
Q. Do you know why they broke the relationship?
A. Because Orlando died during the NPA and PNP
encounter in Dumalneg, sir.
Q. Do you know how long the relationship went on?
xxxx
A. I do not know how many years they were staying with
each other, sir.
Q. But very long?
A. Perhaps about three years, sir.
Q. And immediately after that relationship (you) became
sweethearts?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. At what moment did Joemer Rumbaoa become the
sweetheart of Hilda Acio?

7
A. On March 17, 1991, sir x x x x
Assuming that Orlando “Lando” Aguinaldo was Hilda’s

first boyfriend and that the relationship lasted for about
three
______________
7 TSN, 17 February 1993, pp. 76-77.
767
VOL. 272, MAY 29, 1997 767

People vs. Soriano
years, this would make Hilda only ten (10) or eleven (11)
years old at the start of the supposed relationship. This by
itself begs credibility which can only lead to the conclusion
that all these are only the product of the accused’s distorted
imagination.
Accused-appellant claims that on 17 March 1991 he saw
Joemer Rumbaoa and Hilda indulging in sexual intercourse
inside the latter’s store. If the accused was Hilda’s
boyfriend at that time, as he would have us believe, his
reaction to the incident would be no less than atypical:
Atty. At what moment did Joemer Rumbaoa become

Reyes: the sweetheart of Hilda Acio?
Lito On March 17, 1991, sir, when I went to buy
Soriano: cigarettes at the store of Hilda Acio, I heard
somebody moaning, and when I peeped through
the hole on the wall, I saw Hilda and a man
inside. The man was on top of Hilda. At the mom
ent I had not yet recognized Joemer Rumbaoa.
After a while I knocked on the small window of
the store and Hilda Acio asked “who is that”; I
simply answered, “it is me,” then Hilda opened
the small wind ow and I looked inside and I saw
Joemer Rumbaoa who was putting on his pants
and left the place in a hurry.
xxxx
Atty. Will you describe Hilda and Joemer at the first
Reyes: time you saw them at the store on March 17,
1991?
Lito Both of them were naked, sir. Joemer was on top
Soriano: of Hilda Acio, and they were kissing each other.
Q. How were you able to recognize Joemer Rumbaoa

and Hilda Acio in that condition?
A. When Hilda Acio opened the window I peeped
through it, I saw them and there is (sic) also a
small bulb which was lighted near the image of
Virgin Mary sir.
Q. Where was (sic) Hilda and Joemer lying when
you saw them?
A. On a folding bed, sir.
Q. What was your reaction when you s aw them ?
xxxx
Lito Of course I felt bad about it, and I did not expect
Soriano: Hilda to do that, sir.
768

People vs. Soriano
Atty. Were you able to talk to Hilda immediately after

Reyes: you saw them in that situation?
A. I did not talk to her after she handed the cigarettes
I went already, sir.
Q. Were you able to talk to Joemer Rumbaoa?
A. No, sir, we talked the following day.
Q. Where did you talk?
A. On the street when we chanced upon each other,
sir.
Q. What did you converse about?
A. We talked about what happened to them. I told
Joemer Rumbaoa to marry Hilda Acio otherwise I
would report to the father of Hilda, but Joemer
declined because he said he found out that Hilda
was no longer a virgin woman, sir.
xxxx
Q. After that incident, did you have a chance to talk to
Hilda Acio?
A. On March 22, 1991, sir.
Q. Where did you talk with Hilda Acio?
A. When I went to take merienda at the store at about
4:00 o’clock in the afternoon, sir.
Q. Did she call for you at the store?

A. She told me, “Would you
8
mind to come at the house
of my grandmother?”
The above narration cannot inspire belief. For if indeed the

accused caught his “girlfriend” in flagrante with another
man, he would not have reacted as mildly as he did. Again,
appellant lost no effort in describing Hilda as a woman of
loose morals. But this serves no useful purpose at all. For
the character of a rape victim will not disprove rape. There
is absolutely no nexus between the reputation of a rape
victim and the odious deed committed against her.
But if there be any doubt still on the culpability of
appellant, his letter to Hilda and her parents (Exhs. “C”
and “C-1”) should dispel that doubt and clinch the case for
the prosecution. In the letter, appellant repeatedly
admitted the wrong he committed against Hilda and begged
for her forgiveness and
_______________
8 Id., pp. 77-80.
769
VOL. 272, MAY 29, 1997 769

People vs. Soriano
that of her parents, brothers, sisters and grandmother. The

letter which appellant admitted to have w ritten on 19
December 19919
in the Ilocano dialect and now translated
into Eng-lish pertinently reads—
Dearest Uncle, Auntie and Ading ko (a younger person)

Hilda,
I hope to God that your family is fine x x x x I truly
repent from the grave sin I have committed against you.
And I will never stop from asking forgiveness from you
and from praying to the Lord God (italics supplied).
Uncle, Auntie and particularly to you ading ko
Hilda, Leslie O., Josie, Joseph, Jacky, Merie Flor, and
Merie Jane and Lola Merced, do forgive m e now from
that grave sin I have comm itted against your whole
family x x x x I truly repent from having offended you,
for I was heavily drunk at that time and did not know
what I was doing at that day. And I promise and I
swear to you that I will never commit any sin again x x
x x Do forgive me now, Uncle, Auntie and especially

you, ading ko Hilda. And I promise and swear to you
again that I will not sin again and please give me
another chance to change and atone (for) my offense
agains t you (italics supplied).
Do forgive me now Uncle, Auntie and ading ko
Hilda x x x x for I can no longer sleep thinking and
praying to our Lord God, asking with all my heart
forgiveness from you x x x x Yes, Uncle, Auntie and
ading ko Hilda, I again ask your forgiveness and I
promise and swear that I will never commit any sin
again. Not anymore for I have come to realize the
gravity of my offense against you. Yes, Uncle and
Auntie, do forgive me now and if possible let us s ettle
this case (italics supplied).
I know that our Lord God understands and forgives
all sinners like me.
Till now, my regards to all of you and may the Lord
our God grant you peace and answer your prayers.
Asking your forgiveness,
(Sgd.) LITHO SORIANO
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the court a quo finding

accused-appellant LITO SORIANO Y SAGUCIO alias
“Loreto
_______________
9 Exh. “C-2,” Records, p. 178.
770

Paterno vs. Court of Appeals
Soriano y Sagucio” GUILTY of RAPE and sentencing him

to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all the
accessory penalties provided by law, to pay Hilda Acio
moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 and to pay the
costs, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Vitug, Kapunan and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.

Padilla (Chairman), J., On leave.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes.—Clothes of the victim are not essential and need

not be presented as they are not indispensable evidence to
prove rape. (People vs. Budol, 143 SCRA 241 [1986])

It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for some
time the assaults on their virtue because of the rapist’s
threats on their lives. (People vs. Errojo, 229 SCRA 50
[1994])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

3 Go Vs CA PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 Go Vs CA PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 272

752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

NANCY GO AND ALEX GO, petitioners, vs. THE

Marriages; Husband and Wife; In our society, the importance

VOL. 272, MAY 29, 1997 753

Go vs. Court of Appeals

be noted that in the course of the protracted trial below,

may still exis t despite the presence of contractual relations, that

754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Go vs. Court of Appeals

which violates the contract may also cons titute a quasi-delict.

PETITION for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Saleto J. Erames for private respondents.

VOL. 272, MAY 29, 1997 755

No less than the Constitution commands us to protect

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby granted:

1. Ordering the rescission of the agreement entered into

1 Section 2, Article XV, 1987 Constitution.

756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

a) P450.00, the down payment made at contract time;

Defendants are also ordered to pay the costs.

Dissatisfied with the decision, petitioners elevated the case

2 Rollo, pp. 15-23.

VOL. 272, MAY 29, 1997 757

Petitioners’ argument that since the video equipment used

758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In this regard, Article 1170 of the Civil Code provides that

6 Article 2200, Civil Code of the Philippines.

VOL. 272, MAY 29, 1997 759

Considering the attendant wanton negligence committed

(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;

760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ple that contracts produce 13

Regalado (Chairman), Puno, Mendoza and Torres,

Judgment affirmed with modification.

Note.—“Secret marriage” is a legally non-existent

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff -appellee, vs.

Evidence; Witnesses; Factual findings of trial courts are

13 Article 1311, Civil Code of the Philippines.

VOL. 272, MAY 29, 1997 761

People vs. Soriano

tion to observe the deportment and demeanor of witnesses and to

APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

LITO SORIANO Y SAGUCIO alias “Loreto Soriano y

VOL. 272, MAY 29, 1997 763

he said he preferred to pass through the kitchen door

1 Exh. “B,” Folder of Exhibits.

764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

case against the accused, and on 13 May 1991 he was

3 Docketed as Crim. Case No. 833-19.

VOL. 272, MAY 29, 1997 765

nesses and to assess their credibility. Their factual findings

6 TSN, 3 March 1993, p. 83.

766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

rape, the evaluation of the evidence presented therein

sweetheart of Hilda Acio?

Assuming that Orlando “Lando” Aguinaldo was Hilda’s

7 TSN, 17 February 1993, pp. 76-77.

VOL. 272, MAY 29, 1997 767

Atty. At what moment did Joemer Rumbaoa become